It's almost hard to believe that the universe is made up

>>8493290
Yes, there are infinite number of elements out there, but this infinite will be lower than the number of planets, moons, etc.

>>8493290
Probably some. But there's a limit, at some point inner shell electrons are going to need a velocity greater than c.

>>8493290
There's things in the universe that aren't made up of things on that table

This may interest you:
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability

On the other hand you have to consider that "worlds" like Skyrim or the Witcher III are just made up out of 0 and 1.

What if I told you those are made of only two types of particles?

>>8493290
Only a shockingly small percentage of the mass-energy in the universe is in the form of baryns, let alone full atoms.

On a related note, isn't it cool to think that a neutron star is basically just a singular atomic nucleus with too many neutrons? No gluons holding them together, but still.

what are you stupid? can you count on the finger of one hand the number of ways that these 'basic' elements can combine?

there are just 26 letters in the alphabet? how could shakespeare have written his plays with just 26 letters?? he must have used some invisible dark letters that we can't see, but which we FEEL

>>8493335
So it's like a fat person?

>>8493338
>no gluons
>atomic nucleus
please

File: 1446056257507.png (443KB, 655x653px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 655x653px

>>8493336
>he must have used some invisible dark letters that we can't see, but which we FEEL
saved

>>8493331
I hear tell there is a standard particle model that might be part of a multiverse with infinite particles. But who really cares for now as the table of elements just werks.

>>8493344
What do you think y sometimes being a vowel is? There is no vowel so there is a dark vowel - y

>>8493335
How do we know there's no gluons?

>>8493298
But is it a higher or lower infinite than the total number of possible legal moves in chess?

>>8493290
You have to understand that the idea of an element is merely an abstraction of our atomic model. We understand enough about electron interactions that we can make predictions as to when and how these interactions occur, which is basically what the purpose of the periodic table is. "Elements" are not real, but rather, charged particles interact in a way that we can quantitatively understand, and so we increment this with a system that allows us to look at individual cases of said interactions in an understandable manner.

So, ultimately, the amount of "elements" that can exist relies on how sustainable and naturally attainable highly energetic interactions are. We've had to artificially create instances with larger magnitudes of charged interaction than what is found in nature, because the universe is lazy and doesn't like to use more energy than it has to. The amount of elements that may exist might as well be an irrelevant concept to consider, as nature cannot and will not generate these by itself.

>>8493290

OP's current table occasions a bit of culture:

the five-month period for the new element names has lapsed. So now the question becomes: when will the IUPAC actually announce that the names Nihonium, Moscovium, Tennessine and Oganesson are done deals?

This is a formality that I haven't seen anyone announce yet, and I've been watching. that last period has been tantalizingly incomplete in various tables over the past few decades, so this would mark the end of an era, and give textbook publishers an excuse to stop at period seven and leave the rest aside, for decades to come.

>>8493290
No. Simply put super heavy elements are unlikely to occur naturally.

>>8493290
There obviously are elements beyond those on the periodic table, however given there lives are incredibly short lived and abundances are only a few atoms. Often man made, I'd say that for all practical purposes. No there are no crazy elements out there waiting to be discovered